The Supreme Court held that the Department of Justice (DOJ) committed a manifest error in finding no probable cause to indict SPO1 Roel D. Acosta and Numeriano Sapiandante for murder. The Court emphasized that while preliminary investigations are executive in nature, courts can review these findings for grave abuse of discretion. This ruling reinforces the importance of witness credibility and the need for a thorough evaluation of evidence during preliminary investigations, especially when conflicting testimonies and delayed reporting are involved. It serves as a reminder that probable cause requires more than a bare suspicion and that inconsistencies in initial reports do not automatically invalidate subsequent testimonies.

Delayed Testimony, Doubtful Descriptions: When Does Probable Cause in Murder Cases Crumble?

This case arose from the murder of Bernadette M. Dimatulac, who was shot inside a church. Nieva Manebo, the victim’s sister, filed a complaint against SPO1 Roel D. Acosta and Numeriano Sapiandante. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) recommended filing murder charges, but the DOJ initially dismissed the case due to doubts about the credibility of key witnesses. The primary issue revolved around whether the DOJ Secretary erred in reversing the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause.

The DOJ Secretary questioned the testimony of Flordeliza Bagasan, who claimed to have witnessed the shooting. The Secretary noted that the initial police report identified the person beside the victim as Liza Gragasan, not Flordeliza Bagasan, and that Bagasan’s description of Acosta did not match his physical attributes. Additionally, the DOJ Secretary doubted the credibility of Severino Sardia, who claimed to have seen Sapiandante driving the getaway vehicle, because his statement was given belatedly and he wasn’t mentioned in the initial police report. Consequently, the DOJ directed the withdrawal of the information filed against Acosta and Sapiandante.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the DOJ’s assessment. The Court emphasized that probable cause requires such facts and circumstances that would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the crime. This standard does not demand absolute certainty but implies a probability of guilt, requiring more than bare suspicion but less than evidence to justify a conviction. The Court found that the DOJ had committed a manifest error in its evaluation of the evidence, particularly in discounting the testimonies of key witnesses.

The Court addressed the discrepancy in the witness’s name, noting that “Liza Gragasan” in the police report could reasonably be Flordeliza Bagasan, given the similarity in names and the fact that “Liza” could be a nickname for Flordeliza. Moreover, the Court recognized that Bagasan’s delay in providing her affidavit was understandable given the traumatic nature of the event. Citing Ingal v. People, the Court stated:

Initial reluctance to volunteer information regarding a crime due to fear of reprisal is common enough that it has been judicially declared as not affecting a witness’ credibility.

Furthermore, the Court noted that Bagasan had positively identified Acosta, and there was no evidence of any improper motive that would cause her to falsely accuse him. The Court also addressed the DOJ’s skepticism regarding Sardia’s testimony. While Sardia was not initially mentioned in the police report, the Court emphasized that entries in a police blotter are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. The Court held that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses.

The Supreme Court referenced the rule of idem sonans to address the issue of the witness’s name being recorded as Liza Gragasan in the police report when it was actually Flordeliza Bagasan. The Court explained:

Under the rule of idem sonans, two names are said to be “idem sonantes” if the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing them when pronounced. The question whether a name sounds the same as another is not one of spelling but of pronunciation.

Building on this principle, the Court underscored that the inaccurate recording of the surname Bagasan as Gragasan does not invalidate the witness’s testimony, as the pronunciation remains similar. The Court also considered the delay in Bagasan providing her affidavit. The court stated:

Moreover, a witness’ delay in reporting what she knows about a crime does not render her testimony false or incredible, for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people to get involved in a criminal case.

This statement reinforces that delayed reporting is not necessarily indicative of dishonesty but can be a result of understandable human behavior in the face of traumatic or dangerous situations. The Court noted that the witness, Sardia, identified Acosta with another unidentified male companion rushing out of the chapel. The court further stated that:

Entries in a police blotter, though regularly done in the course of the performance of official duty, are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries and should not be given undue significance or probative value for they are usually incomplete and inaccurate.

This clarification is essential because it prevents undue reliance on initial police reports that may contain omissions or inaccuracies, particularly when conflicting testimonies arise later in the investigation. Finally, the Supreme Court reiterated the limited scope of preliminary investigations. In Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Hon. Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzales, Oliver T. Yao and Diana T. Yao, the Court noted that the public prosecutor merely determines whether there is probable cause to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. This reinforces the notion that the preliminary investigation is not a trial, and the prosecutor’s role is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) erred in reversing the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause to indict the respondents for murder, based on its assessment of witness credibility and the evidence presented.
What is probable cause?	Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the crime subject of the investigation. It implies a probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence to justify a conviction.
Why did the DOJ initially dismiss the case?	The DOJ dismissed the case primarily because it doubted the credibility of the key witnesses, Flordeliza Bagasan and Severino Sardia. The DOJ cited inconsistencies in the initial police report and delays in the witnesses providing their affidavits.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the DOJ’s decision?	The Supreme Court reversed the DOJ’s decision, holding that the DOJ had committed a manifest error in finding no probable cause to indict the respondents for murder. The Court found that the DOJ’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility was flawed.
What is the significance of the idem sonans rule in this case?	The idem sonans rule was used to address the discrepancy in the witness’s name, showing that “Liza Gragasan” in the police report could reasonably be Flordeliza Bagasan, given the similarity in pronunciation. This helped establish the witness’s presence at the crime scene.
Why did the Supreme Court consider the delayed testimony of witnesses?	The Court acknowledged that witnesses often delay reporting crimes due to fear of reprisal or general reluctance to get involved. This delay does not automatically render their testimony false or incredible, and the reasons for the delay should be considered.
What is the role of police blotter entries in court proceedings?	The Court clarified that entries in a police blotter are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries and should not be given undue significance or probative value. They are often incomplete and inaccurate, and other evidence should be considered.
What is the scope of a preliminary investigation?	A preliminary investigation is conducted by the public prosecutor to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty. It is not a trial but a means of determining whether to proceed with formal charges.

This case highlights the importance of a thorough and fair evaluation of evidence during preliminary investigations. While the executive branch has the authority to make decisions regarding probable cause, those decisions are subject to judicial review to ensure that they are not made with grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes that the credibility of witnesses, even with initial inconsistencies or delays in reporting, should be carefully considered in light of the totality of the circumstances.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: NIEVA M. MANEBO v. SPO1 ROEL D. ACOSTA AND NUMERIANO SAPIANDANTE, G.R. No. 169554, October 28, 2009